Nearly half of Windows 7 installations are 64-bit

[JonM33]

I know you gain hardware-backed DEP, and Kernel Patch Protection (or at least you did in Vista x64), but then you lose 16-bit app support, 32-bit driver support, and the ability to install unsigned drivers. That's why I've typically felt that 64-bit was only really necessary on systems with higher RAM.

Obviously I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time (just ask some of the other members ). But don't forget, Microsoft's minimum requirements can be misleading. They said Vista could run on 512MB of RAM, and I and others I knew could barely get it to move on even 1GB.

Unless you are using Windows 95/98 then 16-bit application support is moot. His hardware is current enough to have 64-bit drivers. Both of those are unrelated to meeting minimum requirements for RAM.

Actually, the minimum for Windows Vista is 1GB RAM. Reference: Windows Vista system requirements - Microsoft Windows

I will admit though that Windows Vista was a bit more hardware intensive than that and needed at least 2GB minimum. Everyone that I know that had a desktop with Windows Vista and complained about it's performance had 1GB RAM. I'd suggest they double that to 2GB and also add a separate 128MB DX9 graphics card (for Aero) and all the complaints would go away.

I'd say 2GB minimum for Windows 7 x64 sounds normal. Now if you are going to be gaming at all then 4GB is your minimum.

 

[BCXtreme]

I know you gain hardware-backed DEP, and Kernel Patch Protection (or at least you did in Vista x64), but then you lose 16-bit app support, 32-bit driver support, and the ability to install unsigned drivers. That's why I've typically felt that 64-bit was only really necessary on systems with higher RAM.

Obviously I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time (just ask some of the other members ). But don't forget, Microsoft's minimum requirements can be misleading. They said Vista could run on 512MB of RAM, and I and others I knew could barely get it to move on even 1GB.

Unless you are using Windows 95/98 then 16-bit application support is moot. His hardware is current enough to have 64-bit drivers. Both of those are unrelated to meeting minimum requirements for RAM.

Actually, the minimum for Windows Vista is 1GB RAM. Reference: Windows Vista system requirements - Microsoft Windows

I will admit though that Windows Vista was a bit more hardware intensive than that and needed at least 2GB minimum. Everyone that I know that had a desktop with Windows Vista and complained about it's performance had 1GB RAM. I'd suggest they double that to 2GB and also add a separate 128MB DX9 graphics card (for Aero) and all the complaints would go away.

I'd say 2GB minimum for Windows 7 x64 sounds normal. Now if you are going to be gaming at all then 4GB is your minimum.

The latter makes sense given my penchant for gaming.

1GB is the recommended requirement for Vista. If you look more towards the bottom of the link you gave me, you will see that the minimum requirement is listed as 512MB.

This discussion is pretty much moot anyway, since the person I was originally responding to said they didn't want to upgrade to x64.

And yeah, everyone I knew that had Vista performance issues also had only 1GB, cause that's what all the OEMs were selling. I think a lot of Vista's bad name came from people buying underpowered computers that should never have been certified to run that OS.

We need to get back on topic.

I'm actually very surprised that only half of Windows 7 users have 64-bit. I thought the percentage was much higher. Still, that's good. I've noticed that most OEMs have dropped the 512MB/1GB options from their RAM configurations, and now draw the bottom line at a minimum of 2GB, I've seen a lot of OEM lines with a minimum of 3GB or 4GB.

 

[Lebon14]

I like how my two sentences detracked the topic lol. I know that I do have the minimum for 64-bit but I don't feel like running on the minimum. Sometimes, I do play some games so...yeah

 

[bagavan]

Windows 8: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

The installed base of 64-bit (x64) Windows 7 has reached 46% in June 2010, vs. 54% for 32-bit (x86) Windows 7, according to statistics released by Microsoft. It is clear from the data shared by the Redmond company that end users are starting to choose x64 systems and equivalent Windows 7 editions over older x86 architectures. The software giant underlines that this is an increasing trend, and that it expects 64-bit Windows 7 to become the norm, and 32-bit Windows 7 the exception. Of course, the question now is, what will the future hold for Windows 8?

Windows 8: 32-bit vs. 64-bit - It will be interesting to see what the future holds for Windows 7's successor - Softpedia

 

[severedsolo]

Im suprised also that 64 bit is only 46%. I guess the "netbook craze" must have contributed to that. I dont think I've ever seen a Desktop or Laptop that came with 32 bit Windows 7.

 

[Layback Bear]

It's very simple to me. Windows 32 is for yesterday and Windows 64 is for today and tomorrow. I don't notice any slow down using 4 gigs of ram. My next computer will have 8 gigs of ram. (I don't play games on line). I have found very few programs that I want that I can't find in 64 bit. There are 64 bit programs added every few days. With the very large increase in Windows 64 as JMH has posted things will get better for 64 bit. Other companies that see that increase will read the writing on the wall and pick up their pace switching to 64 bit. For those like me that have a pile of old 32 bit programs on c/d that work but not quite correctly will just have bite the bullet and buy them again in 64 bit or in some cases can update them to 64 bit. That's just the way it is in today's computer world.

 

[WindowsStar]

Microsoft should move exclusively to 64-bit. They can have the WOW system for 32-bit support. We have been using 64-bit in the Server area for years now. I would like to see 128-bit in the server area and 64-bit exclusively in the workstation area. This should give us and Microsoft a good 10 years without needing to change the bits.

 

[CarlTR6]

On my antique, I am still running 32 bit. It does fine with 2.5 Gb of RAM

 

[EpicThorn]

I would like to see some more detail to the numbers of what the 32 bit Win7 are on. I'm tipping that with the hype of netbooks, the figures would be at least 15% -30% of the 32 bit installs are on netbooks/Ultra-Portables (whatever people want to call them).

I have been running 64 bit versions of Windows for around 5 years now, yes, sometimes software is hard to come by that has 64 bit versions available, but I have always had more than one PC operating at home (currently have 5, don't tell the wife), and there is always one that has 32 bit.

I say Windows 8 (or a special Windows 7.5 edition) should be released as 64 bit only OS. It has it's advantages to such a gamble, however, a gamble that would strongly rely on the hardware manufacturers releasing good quality drivers. Microsoft should take a balls to the wall approach on cramming 64 bit down the throats of the big PC companies, the end product would be PC specs that were well planned and not underpowered money wasters like we have seen in the past and present.
And that's my long winded 2 cents

Regards,
Thorn

 

[mickey megabyte]

i'm wondering how many people said we don't need 32-bits back in the day, or 16-, 8- etc

neo-phobes find it difficult to adapt to change - i'm glad we don't still live in caves.

i'm reminded of that often-repeated-but-maybe-not-true bill gates quote, something like “640K ought to be enough for anybody.”

 

[severedsolo]

I say Windows 8 (or a special Windows 7.5 edition) should be released as 64 bit only OS. It has it's advantages to such a gamble, however, a gamble that would strongly rely on the hardware manufacturers releasing good quality drivers.

Say hello to Vista mark 2.... you force 64 bit on people, people are going to whinge.

Personally, I agree with you that it would be a good move to make. Look at the whole XP thing, MS are just saying flat out "No. We're not making our products for it any more" (IE9) in an effort to drag people kicking and screaming into 2010. Look how many people are still clinging on though. Not even people who are just saying "XP does the job, I don't need anything else" its people saying "XP is the best OS ever and I will never upgrade, MS have broken Vista and Win 7" despite having never ever tried it! I think that when (and it is when) MS drop 32 bit support, you will see the same thing happen again.

 

[EpicThorn]

I get what you mean 100% Severed. It's ridiculous the way people are clinging onto WinXP. And the failure of Vista was not entirely Microsofts fault, sadly though, the only people that can understand that point are in the industry.
Windows 7 was a massive reprieve for Microsoft, however, an incentive program may be required to get the WinXP users out of the stone age.
Windows 7 will eventually be the new WinXP in terms of user base not wanting to change.

Thorn

 

[severedsolo]

Windows 7 will eventually be the new WinXP in terms of user base not wanting to change.

Thorn

I may well be one of those people I was just bashing if Windows 8 goes cloud based :roflmao:

 

[EpicThorn]

Well word on the grapevine says that Win8 will be cloud based, and Microsoft are firm on such desires to keep it so.

 

[CarlTR6]

Windows 7 will eventually be the new WinXP in terms of user base not wanting to change.

Thorn

I may well be one of those people I was just bashing if Windows 8 goes cloud based :roflmao:

I hear you, Martin; I will be one of those, too.

 

[EpicThorn]

What do we know of the Pros/Cons of a having a full cloud based OS? All that "cloud" based bullshit is not really of interest to me, perhaps it is a good time to do some reading on it.

 

[Dave76]

Windows 7 will eventually be the new WinXP in terms of user base not wanting to change.

Thorn

I may well be one of those people I was just bashing if Windows 8 goes cloud based :roflmao:

I'm with you on that one. Not really excited about having everything on the web.

MS will have another Vista like bad reception if it's only cloud based.


Back on topic,

It's time to move to 64 bit. I've been using it for 4 years now, no issues.

Same things were said against the 16bit vs 32bit change. We survived that.

 

[mickey megabyte]

but we'll all still have local hard drives, yes? maybe, cloud will merely be an useful option.

worldwide average broadband speeds will have to increase a lot before we are forced into cloud-cuckoo land.

we'll have super-ssd's by then - roll on the future!

 

[BCXtreme]

There's no way Windows 8 will be able to abolish local storage, I mean you've got a fair number of people like me that store terabytes of data on their HDDs. With current average Internet speeds and bandwidth limits, it's simply not practical to be transferring that amount of data over the Internet. Not to mention, there is a definite limit to what should and should not be cloud-based. For example, having email, RSS, maybe saved games (Steam Cloud), some Office documents, etc, on the cloud would be beneficial to most people. But you would not want downloads on the cloud (then you're not even really downloading them), you would not want a lot of sensitive data on the cloud, you would usually not want virtual machines on the cloud, or anything that currently doesn't require Internet access. Windows will lose MOST of their vast market share if Windows 8 FORCES you to have ALL your data on the cloud.

And I agree that everyone will survive the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit. In fact, all things considered, everything will be easier once that transition is fully complete, because developers won't have to struggle with compatibility for both architectures. As it is, every driver out there has to have two versions each for Vista and 7.

 

[CarlTR6]

I agree with you. The hold up between 32 to 64 is old hardware. As people (like me) upgrade their hardware, they will move to 64 bit.